Without reading the article fully (sorry, it’s long and I already have an opinion about the topic that is mostly in line with it): What’s up with its huge focus on the Rutherford person?
Is the book he wrote so dominant in discourse? Are people angry that he is personally insulting the Collins for using US-wide available embryo selection technology?
It just reads weird that the article spends 2/3 of its length arguing at someone I never heard about (which might just be on me) and whom the authors seem to hold in such low esteem. Yeah, these twitter screenshots seem to show someone who is angry and not arguing in good faith … so why let them live rent-free in such a large part of your article?
(though I wouldn’t call IVF exactly „new“ at this point anymore … but then there is the relatively high rate of heart defects for kids conceived that way, which AFAIK isn’t well understood. So the point stands that IVF might have under-appreciated risks.)
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Without reading the article fully (sorry, it’s long and I already have an opinion about the topic that is mostly in line with it): What’s up with its huge focus on the Rutherford person?
Is the book he wrote so dominant in discourse? Are people angry that he is personally insulting the Collins for using US-wide available embryo selection technology?
It just reads weird that the article spends 2/3 of its length arguing at someone I never heard about (which might just be on me) and whom the authors seem to hold in such low esteem. Yeah, these twitter screenshots seem to show someone who is angry and not arguing in good faith … so why let them live rent-free in such a large part of your article?
There is a (better argued and worded) comment on the article itself that also captures this feeling:
https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/embryo-selection-healthy-babies-vs/comment/17761959?r=9lzgr
(though I wouldn’t call IVF exactly „new“ at this point anymore … but then there is the relatively high rate of heart defects for kids conceived that way, which AFAIK isn’t well understood. So the point stands that IVF might have under-appreciated risks.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link